D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

You'll never learn so much in such a small book, 28 Jan 2007
This book is a work of genius for the whole, exquisitely written it offers wisdom on most pages and nonsense on the others. It's been a very long time since I learnt such a large amount, the language has a poetic beauty to it and anybody interested in governance should read this. The thesis of the book is well known (as it indeed should be) but there are some startling facts about the author. Rousseau was serial child abandoner; he seems to have left five children in foundling hospitals and when attacked by his critic, a certain Voltaire, his defence was that the he would have been a poor father and his children would fair better in a foundling hospital. A slightly implausible fact given the high mortality rate at the founding hospital. Still, we judge him for his ideas, not his actions so this book receives a resounding five stars.

socialist precurser, 22 Mar 2006
this book is not, as other readers claim, endorsing dictatorship, but rather is criticising bad democracy. surprisingly persuasive and well written, as a blueprint to later socialist theories eg Marx, it is fascinating.

A Warning From History, 19 May 2004
This is an important book, perhaps one of the most influential ever written. Unfortunately its influence has been wholly pernicious in the extreme - the blueprint for totalitarian regimes the world over. Rousseau was a psychotic and self obsessed individual who elaborated a theory of human civilization at odds with the basic principles of common sense and reason. From the French Revolutionary terror to the Soviet Gulags - the hallmarks of Rousseau's absurd doctrines can be found. But a willfull disregard for reality seems to be the prerequisite for so called enlightened thinkers and those that provided the ideological bedrock for revolutionaries from the french revolution onwards. The most recent example of an attempt to throw off the 'shackles' of civilization occured in Cambodia - Pol Pot - a true disciple of Rousseau, nurtured in the intellectual salons of the Left Bank. Savage indeed, but noble? In the fevered dreams of Marxist intellectuals were the ovens and gulags first delineated - Rousseau was their precursor, an important document, handle with care.

Rousseau, we love ya!, 06 Mar 2001
It's coherent. It's valid. It's informed. One must make up one's own mind about the 'general will', however. Buy, read, then dismiss. Or buy, read, then love. If you can find it in your soul to love a piece of political theory, that is.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

You'll never learn so much in such a small book, 28 Jan 2007
This book is a work of genius for the whole, exquisitely written it offers wisdom on most pages and nonsense on the others. It's been a very long time since I learnt such a large amount, the language has a poetic beauty to it and anybody interested in governance should read this. The thesis of the book is well known (as it indeed should be) but there are some startling facts about the author. Rousseau was serial child abandoner; he seems to have left five children in foundling hospitals and when attacked by his critic, a certain Voltaire, his defence was that the he would have been a poor father and his children would fair better in a foundling hospital. A slightly implausible fact given the high mortality rate at the founding hospital. Still, we judge him for his ideas, not his actions so this book receives a resounding five stars.

socialist precurser, 22 Mar 2006
this book is not, as other readers claim, endorsing dictatorship, but rather is criticising bad democracy. surprisingly persuasive and well written, as a blueprint to later socialist theories eg Marx, it is fascinating.

A Warning From History, 19 May 2004
This is an important book, perhaps one of the most influential ever written. Unfortunately its influence has been wholly pernicious in the extreme - the blueprint for totalitarian regimes the world over. Rousseau was a psychotic and self obsessed individual who elaborated a theory of human civilization at odds with the basic principles of common sense and reason. From the French Revolutionary terror to the Soviet Gulags - the hallmarks of Rousseau's absurd doctrines can be found. But a willfull disregard for reality seems to be the prerequisite for so called enlightened thinkers and those that provided the ideological bedrock for revolutionaries from the french revolution onwards. The most recent example of an attempt to throw off the 'shackles' of civilization occured in Cambodia - Pol Pot - a true disciple of Rousseau, nurtured in the intellectual salons of the Left Bank. Savage indeed, but noble? In the fevered dreams of Marxist intellectuals were the ovens and gulags first delineated - Rousseau was their precursor, an important document, handle with care.

Rousseau, we love ya!, 06 Mar 2001
It's coherent. It's valid. It's informed. One must make up one's own mind about the 'general will', however. Buy, read, then dismiss. Or buy, read, then love. If you can find it in your soul to love a piece of political theory, that is.

Thought provoking wonderment, 30 Mar 2007
Sir Thomas More's Utopia is a hugely ambiguous, evocative and thought provoking book. It relays a conversation between Thomas More and Raphael Hythloday, who tells the story of a kingdom he has recently spent a number of years living in, Utopia. Raphael gives the details of this nation, a natiion where everyone is equal, where they all wear the same clothes, there is no money, everyone works for the good of the nation, everyone gets the same education, and so on, in short a perfect communist society.

However, even though Raphael Hythloday says throughout that there is no better system of government in the world than the Utopian way, the book in no way makes it apparent the author feels this, the charachter Thomas More in the book is sceptical of some of the Utopian ideals, and we are left ourselves to decide, and even though it is a utopia filled by equality, the image of the nation is quite a creepy one, everyone looks the same, all of the cities are identical, people are only allowed to visit other cities with a special permit and even when they are in other cities they still have to work. Criminals are forced into slavery rather than imprisoned, but even the "free" citizens appear to be slaves to an extent.

A critique of English Tudor government, of the role of the monarchs privy council and the running of England is also offered in book which is quite interesting. But this book will make you think about government and the ideals of a perfect society, and how in the end, the utopian ideal is flawed.

Wonderful book, read it.

Unreal dream, 21 Oct 2005
Thomas More dreams of a world of tolerance and antimilitarism, but also of collectivism and anticapitalism (a world without money). For him, a world based on private property cannot be prosperous and just. He considered all treaties between prosperous states as a conspiracy of riches.
So, he was more radical than the most diehard leftist of today.
His principal targets are kings, religious authorities and the landowners with their disastrous policy of enclosures, driving all farmers and their families into certain poverty and death.
He gives us also a juicy mockery of the Swiss, who sold themselves as mercenaries to the highest bidders.
This book is still a worth-while read.

A More Perfect Plan, 12 Jul 2005
Thomas More, executed by Henry VIII (one of his best friends) for treason, led an illustrious career of politics and letters. Under his friend the King, he served in many capacities - Speaker of the House of Commons, Master of Requests, Privy Councillor, etc. - culminating with the trust of the position of Lord Chancellor, a position in those days matching the prominence (if not the definition) of Prime Minister in these days. More's strong integrity and resolute mind caught the attention of scholars, political and church leaders internationally; it was this same integrity that most likely was his undoing, refusing to assent to the King's divorce and severance of ties binding the English Church with the Roman overlordship of the Pope. Indeed, More was, if not the actual ghostwriter, then certainly an inspiration and editorial aide to the document produced by King Henry VIII against the continental protestants, earning for Henry (and his heirs ever after) the title of Defender of the Faith (historical irony is that this title, most likely not intended to be hereditary, now declares the defense of a faith separated from the one for which the title was bestowed).

While an Ambassador to Flanders, More spent spare time writing this book, 'Utopia'. The very title is a still a by-word in the English language (as well as others) of a state of bliss and peace; it is often used with the context of being unrealistic. 'Utopia' is More's response to and development from Plato's 'Republic', in that it is a framework for a perfect society, or at least perfect according to More's ideas of the time. Penned originally in Latin, 'Utopia' has been translated widely; one of the better translations is by H.V.S. Ogden, in 1949, still reprinted in various editions to this day. Originally published in Latin in 1516, the first English version appeared in 1551, some 16 years after More's death.

-----------
Utopia
-----------

Thomas More writes this as if he were traveling, and meets his friend Peter Giles, who introduces him to Raphael Hythloday, a scholar/traveler with tales to tell.

Hythloday made friends with a prince who outfitted him for a journey. He traveled through deserts and fertile lands. He proceeds to give an account to Giles and More. In an ironic twist, given More's own attachment to Henry VIII, Hythloday states that he doesn't give his information in advice of kings or princes, for to be beholden to them is not a wise thing. He quotes Plato, in saying that unless kings were themselves philosophers, they should never appreciate philosophers.

More argues for public service, which Hythloday rejects as something that other place-seekers will use to bolster their own positions. Then Hythloday makes the startling pronouncement with regard to how a society should be constituted: 'As long as there is property, and while money is the standard of all things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily; not justly, because the best things will fall to the share of the worst men; nor happily, because all things will be divided among a few (and even these are not in all respects happy), the rest being left to the absolutely miserable.'

Hythloday proceeds to give an account of the life of Utopia, where, he says, there are so few laws and so much liberty and equality that virtue is always rewarded, and each person has what he or she needs. He talks about this under the following headings:

Of Their Towns, Particularly of Amaurot
Of Their Magistrates
Of Their Trades, and Manner of Life
Of Their Traffic
Of the Travelling of the Utopians
Of Their Slaves, and of Their Marriages
Of Their Military Discipline
Of the Religions of the Utopians

'Utopia' is a radical document. It anticipates the modern idea of communism, with private property at a minimum; it is generations ahead in the idea of equality of the sexes and freedom of religion. This may seem a remarkable statement from someone who will go to his death supporting the Roman hierarchy, but in historical irony, had religious freedom been respected in England at the time, More would have had nothing to fear.

'Utopia' was a place of education and free inquiry. Again, More's own life models this - travelers from as far away as Constantinople and Venice, visiting More's home in Chelsea, remarked on the incredible sense of knowledge and respect for reason and learning, not just for the men, but also for the women of the household (More's own daughter once impressed Henry VIII with her Latin training so much he was at pains to find something at which he excelled that he could best her at).

At different points throughout the text, More (speaking through Hythloday) jabs in witty and insightful manner the habits of the day - that kings are often more concerned to fill their own coffers than increasing the general wealth of the nation; that courts are designed to be self-serving and self-perpetuating; that liberties are curtailed not for just and reasonable causes, but often for petty personal reasons.

Some of the ideas, however, are not as modern or enlightened as they might seem at first glance. Utopians' freedom of religion exists only in very narrow bounds of reason - they are all monotheists, and while they might identify this deity with the sun or moon or a good person who died long ago, they are not permitted to speak or attempt to convert others to this idea, without risking bondage or death. Not too Utopian after all...

-------

More was beatified by Leo XIII in 1886 and canonised by Pius XI in 1935 (it is significant to note that Anglican-Roman relations were at a strained point during these times, and the raising of an English saint who rejected the Anglican construct served at least minor political points, something More would have been able to appreciate, if not approve). The official feast day is July 9.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

You'll never learn so much in such a small book, 28 Jan 2007
This book is a work of genius for the whole, exquisitely written it offers wisdom on most pages and nonsense on the others. It's been a very long time since I learnt such a large amount, the language has a poetic beauty to it and anybody interested in governance should read this. The thesis of the book is well known (as it indeed should be) but there are some startling facts about the author. Rousseau was serial child abandoner; he seems to have left five children in foundling hospitals and when attacked by his critic, a certain Voltaire, his defence was that the he would have been a poor father and his children would fair better in a foundling hospital. A slightly implausible fact given the high mortality rate at the founding hospital. Still, we judge him for his ideas, not his actions so this book receives a resounding five stars.

socialist precurser, 22 Mar 2006
this book is not, as other readers claim, endorsing dictatorship, but rather is criticising bad democracy. surprisingly persuasive and well written, as a blueprint to later socialist theories eg Marx, it is fascinating.

A Warning From History, 19 May 2004
This is an important book, perhaps one of the most influential ever written. Unfortunately its influence has been wholly pernicious in the extreme - the blueprint for totalitarian regimes the world over. Rousseau was a psychotic and self obsessed individual who elaborated a theory of human civilization at odds with the basic principles of common sense and reason. From the French Revolutionary terror to the Soviet Gulags - the hallmarks of Rousseau's absurd doctrines can be found. But a willfull disregard for reality seems to be the prerequisite for so called enlightened thinkers and those that provided the ideological bedrock for revolutionaries from the french revolution onwards. The most recent example of an attempt to throw off the 'shackles' of civilization occured in Cambodia - Pol Pot - a true disciple of Rousseau, nurtured in the intellectual salons of the Left Bank. Savage indeed, but noble? In the fevered dreams of Marxist intellectuals were the ovens and gulags first delineated - Rousseau was their precursor, an important document, handle with care.

Rousseau, we love ya!, 06 Mar 2001
It's coherent. It's valid. It's informed. One must make up one's own mind about the 'general will', however. Buy, read, then dismiss. Or buy, read, then love. If you can find it in your soul to love a piece of political theory, that is.

Thought provoking wonderment, 30 Mar 2007
Sir Thomas More's Utopia is a hugely ambiguous, evocative and thought provoking book. It relays a conversation between Thomas More and Raphael Hythloday, who tells the story of a kingdom he has recently spent a number of years living in, Utopia. Raphael gives the details of this nation, a natiion where everyone is equal, where they all wear the same clothes, there is no money, everyone works for the good of the nation, everyone gets the same education, and so on, in short a perfect communist society.

However, even though Raphael Hythloday says throughout that there is no better system of government in the world than the Utopian way, the book in no way makes it apparent the author feels this, the charachter Thomas More in the book is sceptical of some of the Utopian ideals, and we are left ourselves to decide, and even though it is a utopia filled by equality, the image of the nation is quite a creepy one, everyone looks the same, all of the cities are identical, people are only allowed to visit other cities with a special permit and even when they are in other cities they still have to work. Criminals are forced into slavery rather than imprisoned, but even the "free" citizens appear to be slaves to an extent.

A critique of English Tudor government, of the role of the monarchs privy council and the running of England is also offered in book which is quite interesting. But this book will make you think about government and the ideals of a perfect society, and how in the end, the utopian ideal is flawed.

Wonderful book, read it.

Unreal dream, 21 Oct 2005
Thomas More dreams of a world of tolerance and antimilitarism, but also of collectivism and anticapitalism (a world without money). For him, a world based on private property cannot be prosperous and just. He considered all treaties between prosperous states as a conspiracy of riches.
So, he was more radical than the most diehard leftist of today.
His principal targets are kings, religious authorities and the landowners with their disastrous policy of enclosures, driving all farmers and their families into certain poverty and death.
He gives us also a juicy mockery of the Swiss, who sold themselves as mercenaries to the highest bidders.
This book is still a worth-while read.

A More Perfect Plan, 12 Jul 2005
Thomas More, executed by Henry VIII (one of his best friends) for treason, led an illustrious career of politics and letters. Under his friend the King, he served in many capacities - Speaker of the House of Commons, Master of Requests, Privy Councillor, etc. - culminating with the trust of the position of Lord Chancellor, a position in those days matching the prominence (if not the definition) of Prime Minister in these days. More's strong integrity and resolute mind caught the attention of scholars, political and church leaders internationally; it was this same integrity that most likely was his undoing, refusing to assent to the King's divorce and severance of ties binding the English Church with the Roman overlordship of the Pope. Indeed, More was, if not the actual ghostwriter, then certainly an inspiration and editorial aide to the document produced by King Henry VIII against the continental protestants, earning for Henry (and his heirs ever after) the title of Defender of the Faith (historical irony is that this title, most likely not intended to be hereditary, now declares the defense of a faith separated from the one for which the title was bestowed).

While an Ambassador to Flanders, More spent spare time writing this book, 'Utopia'. The very title is a still a by-word in the English language (as well as others) of a state of bliss and peace; it is often used with the context of being unrealistic. 'Utopia' is More's response to and development from Plato's 'Republic', in that it is a framework for a perfect society, or at least perfect according to More's ideas of the time. Penned originally in Latin, 'Utopia' has been translated widely; one of the better translations is by H.V.S. Ogden, in 1949, still reprinted in various editions to this day. Originally published in Latin in 1516, the first English version appeared in 1551, some 16 years after More's death.

-----------
Utopia
-----------

Thomas More writes this as if he were traveling, and meets his friend Peter Giles, who introduces him to Raphael Hythloday, a scholar/traveler with tales to tell.

Hythloday made friends with a prince who outfitted him for a journey. He traveled through deserts and fertile lands. He proceeds to give an account to Giles and More. In an ironic twist, given More's own attachment to Henry VIII, Hythloday states that he doesn't give his information in advice of kings or princes, for to be beholden to them is not a wise thing. He quotes Plato, in saying that unless kings were themselves philosophers, they should never appreciate philosophers.

More argues for public service, which Hythloday rejects as something that other place-seekers will use to bolster their own positions. Then Hythloday makes the startling pronouncement with regard to how a society should be constituted: 'As long as there is property, and while money is the standard of all things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily; not justly, because the best things will fall to the share of the worst men; nor happily, because all things will be divided among a few (and even these are not in all respects happy), the rest being left to the absolutely miserable.'

Hythloday proceeds to give an account of the life of Utopia, where, he says, there are so few laws and so much liberty and equality that virtue is always rewarded, and each person has what he or she needs. He talks about this under the following headings:

Of Their Towns, Particularly of Amaurot
Of Their Magistrates
Of Their Trades, and Manner of Life
Of Their Traffic
Of the Travelling of the Utopians
Of Their Slaves, and of Their Marriages
Of Their Military Discipline
Of the Religions of the Utopians

'Utopia' is a radical document. It anticipates the modern idea of communism, with private property at a minimum; it is generations ahead in the idea of equality of the sexes and freedom of religion. This may seem a remarkable statement from someone who will go to his death supporting the Roman hierarchy, but in historical irony, had religious freedom been respected in England at the time, More would have had nothing to fear.

'Utopia' was a place of education and free inquiry. Again, More's own life models this - travelers from as far away as Constantinople and Venice, visiting More's home in Chelsea, remarked on the incredible sense of knowledge and respect for reason and learning, not just for the men, but also for the women of the household (More's own daughter once impressed Henry VIII with her Latin training so much he was at pains to find something at which he excelled that he could best her at).

At different points throughout the text, More (speaking through Hythloday) jabs in witty and insightful manner the habits of the day - that kings are often more concerned to fill their own coffers than increasing the general wealth of the nation; that courts are designed to be self-serving and self-perpetuating; that liberties are curtailed not for just and reasonable causes, but often for petty personal reasons.

Some of the ideas, however, are not as modern or enlightened as they might seem at first glance. Utopians' freedom of religion exists only in very narrow bounds of reason - they are all monotheists, and while they might identify this deity with the sun or moon or a good person who died long ago, they are not permitted to speak or attempt to convert others to this idea, without risking bondage or death. Not too Utopian after all...

-------

More was beatified by Leo XIII in 1886 and canonised by Pius XI in 1935 (it is significant to note that Anglican-Roman relations were at a strained point during these times, and the raising of an English saint who rejected the Anglican construct served at least minor political points, something More would have been able to appreciate, if not approve). The official feast day is July 9.

Beyond Imagination, 14 Dec 2007
Imagine every other person in your social circle, family, friends, workplace and high street dropping dead. This was the reality of the Black Death, at least in the more crowded settlements. A tragedy beyond imagination that Defoe brings alive.

It's not the mortality that grips you, catastrophic as they were, but how people, even close relatives, shunned each other because of the near-certainty of contracting the disease and ending up dead themselves.

It's probably my duty to highlight, too, that the Black Death was almost certainly not bubonic plague as it doesn't fit the facts of how the disease spread, but hemorrhagic fever. One of the key pieces of evidence is the outbreak of plague in Iceland, which is known not to harbour a rat population at that time.

Rivetting factual account, 30 Jun 2002
A Journal of the Plague Year argues its case better by a bald statement of facts, than by any elaborate literary devices. This reads like it is meant to be, a journal, bringing home the horrors of that awful time in a way that a second-hand description could never do.
Having said that, this account IS second-hand; it is only Defoe's journalistic expertise, boyhood memories and down-to-earth style that make it so believable.

BUT - anyone who reads this should not expect another Gulliver's Travels - it IS heavy going; it's not a book that one can curl up with & relax, you have to work for your entertainment.

The main point that comes across is the constant religious undercurrent, which was, I guess, typical of the time (if not of Defoe) and the willingness to attach blame for anything unusual to outsiders, or God's will, rather than examine their own circumstances (so what's changed in 337 years!?). As one of the few records of that terrible year, this deserves a place on any amateur historian's bookshelf.

Dark, gripping, and sad story based on a truthful account., 10 Jun 2000
If you skip the depressing death bills, this story will grip you and won't let you go until the end. If you are a history major this story will give you insight into 1660's. Be it human nature, government setup, society setup, etc. A must read!

Fascinating 17th Century Docu-Soap account of the Plague., 28 Apr 2000
I was interested in this book because it promised an account by one who was there and not by student historians who make a living by guessing our past. The gripping eye-witness descriptions make up for the often tedious death toll listings which, once you've read one are best skipped over. A symapthetic view - not too dark.

Interesting and at times quite grisly, 07 Aug 1999
What I like best about DeFoe is that he is very readable and can hold your attention for hours. Sure, he can contradict himself at times and he does have a flair for repetition and while he is not above pointing out the obvious, DeFoe is extremely interesting. "A Journal of the Plague Year" contains all the things DeFoe is noted for including a sharp eye for detail and sly humour. I liked this book and recommend it mainly because much of what DeFoe observed about human nature in the early 18th century is still relevant today.

D'you want power, corruption and fries with that? No ta., 16 Nov 2008
Machiavelli's Il Principe is a slim volume, but it's jam-packed with aperçu of political scenarios that just somehow seemed to be completely beyond the grasp of many so-called philosphers hundreds of years later. I'm not naming any names, but some of the political tomes I've read come across like the writer has spent too much time pondering and not enough time living.

The other thing that sets Machiavelli apart is that it's fun to read. If you admire the work of Marcus Aurelius, Sun Tzu, or The KLF, then this book is a must.

The most basic lesson of Machiavelli is simple common sense - namely that common sense isn't common, and has nothing to do with sense.

Chapters XIX "The need to avoid contempt and hatred" and XXIII "How flatterers must be shunned" - both of these need to be read and understood by anyone with an interest in management. You'd be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) how many of your middle managers are just clockwatchers, ***********, and suit-wearing robots.

Full marks for this translation - it captures the energy and impetus, and most importantly the concise nature of the original text.



One of THE most important works ever written, 25 Aug 2007
This masterpiece of reasoning and good practical handbook on how to get ahead in real life if you happen to be already a man of some means, was a work of great humanity in an age when humanity was still considered disgusting and subserviant to the Lord above and his chosen servants on Earth. What a shot across the bows to all those religious hypocrites and Bible following automatons this must have been, then. Two elements surrounding this work's brave publication are crucial, I feel: One being that this was Italy, (as it became) and at its advanced stage of the great Renaissance, as we now know it, and the second being that it was written at a time which was just right to be publishing order challenging controversial works. After seeing the liberal benefits to man that the use of the printing press had brought, and the world of possibilities it offered, Machiavelli struck the first blow against the stifling and corrupt order of the age.

His publication of political thought and theory which was refreshingly devoid of religious dogma or even quotations, preceded the publication of that other world changing document by three or four years: Luther's pinning of the ninety five thesis to a Church door a few hundred miles north in an area still ruled by edicts pumped out by prelates living closer to Machiavelli. This was exactly the right time to be reaching the learned men of the world with anything revolutionary in tone, and well presented and researched contradictions of established thought were very lible to strike a chord with many. In other words, many people by this time had clearly had all they could stomach of the seething hypocrisy they witnessed being displayed by the Lord's own servants, in the church and consequently in the monarchy led governments of the age. To be spouting their harsh godfearing edicts out to the uneducated masses when the vast majority of them enjoyed the sins they were loudly proscribing the common populace from having, was all a bit rich for certain educated but strong minded men like Machiavelli and Luther. The time was very ripe for a wind of change, and even the corrupt but mighty church of Rome knew it, and feared it.

Machievelli simply took a different line to Luther, perhaps not least because he was far more used to living with these ruler's inconsistencies than the more morally outraged teutonic man of God was. Where Luther got all spiritual and quoted the many edicts from scripture that the church of Rome was blatantly abusing, Machiavelli simply plotted the practical lines for a prostective leader of state to follow, quoting the works of historians and statesmen who had written about both the world's most successful leaders and its least successful leaders, as a practical handbook on how to be a successful head of state. Both of their actions though were brave, and both of them catastrophic to the cosy order of things and to the power of the once mighty Catholic Church. Humanity owes both of these great men an enormous debt, for their brave and insightful works helped breathe a real wind of change to the way the human race had been living.

The virtues of Machiavelli, 03 Feb 2005
In the course of my political science training, I studied at great length the modern idea of realpolitik. In that study I came to realise that it was somewhat incomplete, without the companionship of The Prince, by Niccolo Machiavelli, a Florentine governmental official in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. The Prince is an oft quoted, oft mis-quoted work, used as the philosophical underpinning for much of what is considered both pragmatic and wrong in politics today. To describe someone as being Machiavellian is to attribute to the person ruthless ambition, craftiness and merciless political tactics. Being believed to be Machiavellian is generally politically incorrect. Being Machiavellian, alas, can often be politically expedient.

Machiavelli based his work in The Prince upon his basic understanding of human nature. He held that people are motivated by fear and envy, by novelty, by desire for wealth, power and security, and by a hatred of restriction. In the Italy in which he was writing, democracy was an un-implemented Greek philosophical idea, not a political structure with a history of success; thus, one person's power usually involved the limitation of another person's power in an autocratic way.

Machiavelli did not see this as a permanent or natural state of being -- in fact, he felt that, during his age, human nature had been corrupted and reduced from a loftier nobility achieved during the golden ages of Greece and Rome. He decided that it was the corrupting influence of Christianity that had reduced human nature, by its exaltation of meekness, humility, and otherworldliness.

Machiavelli has a great admiration for the possible and potential, but finds himself inexorably drawn to the practical, dealing with situations as they are, thus becoming an early champion of realpolitik carried forward into this century by the likes of Kissinger, Thatcher, Nixon, and countless others. One of the innovations of Machiavelli's thought was the recognition that the prince, the leader of the city/state/empire/etc., was nonetheless a human being, and subject to all the human limitations and desires with which all contend.

Because the average prince (like the average person) is likely to be focussed upon his own interests, a prince's private interests are generally in opposition to those of his subjects. Fortunate is the kingdom ruled by a virtuous prince, virtue here not defined by Christian or religious tenets, but rather the civic virtue of being able to pursue his own interests without conflicting those of his subjects.

Virtue is that which increases power; vice is that which decreases power. These follow Machiavelli's assumptions about human nature. Machiavelli rejected the Platonic idea of a division between what a prince does and what a prince ought to do. The two principle instruments of the prince are force and propaganda, and the prince, in order to increase power (virtue) ought to employ force completely and ruthlessly, and propaganda wisely, backed up by force. Of course, for Machiavelli, the chief propaganda vehicle is that of religion.

Whoever reads Roman history attentively will see in how great a degree religion served in the command of the armies, in uniting the people and keeping them well conducted, and in covering the wicked with shame.

Machiavelli has been credited with giving ruthless strategies (the example of a new political ruler killing the deposed ruler and the ruler's family to prevent usurpation and plotting is well known) -- it is hard to enact many in current politics in a literal way, but many of his strategies can still be seen in electioneering at every level, in national and international relations, and even in corporate and family internal 'politics'. In fact, I have found fewer more Machiavellian types than in church politics!

Of course, these people would be considered 'virtuous' in Machiavellian terms -- doing what is necessary to increase power and authority.

The title of this piece -- the virtues of Machiavelli, must be considered in this frame; certainly in no way virtuous by current standards, but then, it shows, not all have the same standards. Be careful of the words you use -- they may have differing definitions.

Perhaps if Machiavelli had lived a bit later, and been informed by the general rise of science as a rational underpinning to the world, he might have been able to accept less of a degree of randomness in the universe. Perhaps he would have modified his views. Perhaps not -- after all, the realpolitikers of this age are aware of the scientific framework of the universe, and still pursue their courses.

This is an important work, intriguing in many respects. Far shorter than the average classical or medieval philosophical tome, and more accessible by current readers because of a greater familiarity with politics than, say, metaphysics or epistemology, this work yields benefits and insights to all who read, mark, inwardly digest, and critically examine the precepts.

Ruthless, 28 Oct 2004
The Prince... well its difficult to describe exactly what it entails. I think to start with all who consider going into politics or any kind of management role should be handed a copy of this book at the same time as they recieve their application forms. It is ruthless but efficient also and so its central premises should always be remembered, particularly by our governing bodies.
Machiavelli writes with a self assurance which is refreshing in an age of hesitation and self correction.
I'm not convinced that this was a life changing book for me to read, it certainly affected my attitudes and values but is not a inspirational self help book (not that its supposed to be).
I recommend this to anyone who has an interest in history or in politics.

A prince among men., 14 Oct 2003
Machiavelli's realisation of the true nature of men as "...fickle,lying,cowards..." leads him in his brilliantly astute work to illuminate the realities of government and life in general.
Disregarding all political theorie's and ideaoligies machiavelli refreshingly deals with how things are and not how they should.
While on first glance machiavellis work would seem almost evil in its implications as it has been labeled countless times, a deeper look would show it to be more humane and considerate of human wellbeing then any half baked political ideology (communism, Republicanism,democracy etc). His assertion that the ends justifies the means is a good demonstration of this as Machiavelli demonstrates through historical analogies the truth of life in general: for people to prosper others have to suffer. In truthfully explaining this and insisting it be done quickly and totaly for it to be over and done with machiavelli shows a level of compasion far greater than any bleeding hearted liberal vegaterian (the most likely to be opposed to his assertions)
His work while being what many would labels as deeply cinical is niether cinical nor idealogical but an honest assesment of life in general as well as politics, which cannot help but uplift those of the same frame of mind with the comfort of nowing that the realisation that the world is a very unhappy place is not theres alone.
But if you truly believe in the hollywood view of the world in which love is blind and happy endings happen for every one than don't read this book (ignorance is bliss).

You'll never learn so much in such a small book, 28 Jan 2007
This book is a work of genius for the whole, exquisitely written it offers wisdom on most pages and nonsense on the others. It's been a very long time since I learnt such a large amount, the language has a poetic beauty to it and anybody interested in governance should read this. The thesis of the book is well known (as it indeed should be) but there are some startling facts about the author. Rousseau was serial child abandoner; he seems to have left five children in foundling hospitals and when attacked by his critic, a certain Voltaire, his defence was that the he would have been a poor father and his children would fair better in a foundling hospital. A slightly implausible fact given the high mortality rate at the founding hospital. Still, we judge him for his ideas, not his actions so this book receives a resounding five stars.

socialist precurser, 22 Mar 2006
this book is not, as other readers claim, endorsing dictatorship, but rather is criticising bad democracy. surprisingly persuasive and well written, as a blueprint to later socialist theories eg Marx, it is fascinating.

A Warning From History, 19 May 2004
This is an important book, perhaps one of the most influential ever written. Unfortunately its influence has been wholly pernicious in the extreme - the blueprint for totalitarian regimes the world over. Rousseau was a psychotic and self obsessed individual who elaborated a theory of human civilization at odds with the basic principles of common sense and reason. From the French Revolutionary terror to the Soviet Gulags - the hallmarks of Rousseau's absurd doctrines can be found. But a willfull disregard for reality seems to be the prerequisite for so called enlightened thinkers and those that provided the ideological bedrock for revolutionaries from the french revolution onwards. The most recent example of an attempt to throw off the 'shackles' of civilization occured in Cambodia - Pol Pot - a true disciple of Rousseau, nurtured in the intellectual salons of the Left Bank. Savage indeed, but noble? In the fevered dreams of Marxist intellectuals were the ovens and gulags first delineated - Rousseau was their precursor, an important document, handle with care.

Rousseau, we love ya!, 06 Mar 2001
It's coherent. It's valid. It's informed. One must make up one's own mind about the 'general will', however. Buy, read, then dismiss. Or buy, read, then love. If you can find it in your soul to love a piece of political theory, that is.

Thought provoking wonderment, 30 Mar 2007
Sir Thomas More's Utopia is a hugely ambiguous, evocative and thought provoking book. It relays a conversation between Thomas More and Raphael Hythloday, who tells the story of a kingdom he has recently spent a number of years living in, Utopia. Raphael gives the details of this nation, a natiion where everyone is equal, where they all wear the same clothes, there is no money, everyone works for the good of the nation, everyone gets the same education, and so on, in short a perfect communist society.

However, even though Raphael Hythloday says throughout that there is no better system of government in the world than the Utopian way, the book in no way makes it apparent the author feels this, the charachter Thomas More in the book is sceptical of some of the Utopian ideals, and we are left ourselves to decide, and even though it is a utopia filled by equality, the image of the nation is quite a creepy one, everyone looks the same, all of the cities are identical, people are only allowed to visit other cities with a special permit and even when they are in other cities they still have to work. Criminals are forced into slavery rather than imprisoned, but even the "free" citizens appear to be slaves to an extent.

A critique of English Tudor government, of the role of the monarchs privy council and the running of England is also offered in book which is quite interesting. But this book will make you think about government and the ideals of a perfect society, and how in the end, the utopian ideal is flawed.

Wonderful book, read it.

Unreal dream, 21 Oct 2005
Thomas More dreams of a world of tolerance and antimilitarism, but also of collectivism and anticapitalism (a world without money). For him, a world based on private property cannot be prosperous and just. He considered all treaties between prosperous states as a conspiracy of riches.
So, he was more radical than the most diehard leftist of today.
His principal targets are kings, religious authorities and the landowners with their disastrous policy of enclosures, driving all farmers and their families into certain poverty and death.
He gives us also a juicy mockery of the Swiss, who sold themselves as mercenaries to the highest bidders.
This book is still a worth-while read.

A More Perfect Plan, 12 Jul 2005
Thomas More, executed by Henry VIII (one of his best friends) for treason, led an illustrious career of politics and letters. Under his friend the King, he served in many capacities - Speaker of the House of Commons, Master of Requests, Privy Councillor, etc. - culminating with the trust of the position of Lord Chancellor, a position in those days matching the prominence (if not the definition) of Prime Minister in these days. More's strong integrity and resolute mind caught the attention of scholars, political and church leaders internationally; it was this same integrity that most likely was his undoing, refusing to assent to the King's divorce and severance of ties binding the English Church with the Roman overlordship of the Pope. Indeed, More was, if not the actual ghostwriter, then certainly an inspiration and editorial aide to the document produced by King Henry VIII against the continental protestants, earning for Henry (and his heirs ever after) the title of Defender of the Faith (historical irony is that this title, most likely not intended to be hereditary, now declares the defense of a faith separated from the one for which the title was bestowed).

While an Ambassador to Flanders, More spent spare time writing this book, 'Utopia'. The very title is a still a by-word in the English language (as well as others) of a state of bliss and peace; it is often used with the context of being unrealistic. 'Utopia' is More's response to and development from Plato's 'Republic', in that it is a framework for a perfect society, or at least perfect according to More's ideas of the time. Penned originally in Latin, 'Utopia' has been translated widely; one of the better translations is by H.V.S. Ogden, in 1949, still reprinted in various editions to this day. Originally published in Latin in 1516, the first English version appeared in 1551, some 16 years after More's death.

-----------
Utopia
-----------

Thomas More writes this as if he were traveling, and meets his friend Peter Giles, who introduces him to Raphael Hythloday, a scholar/traveler with tales to tell.

Hythloday made friends with a prince who outfitted him for a journey. He traveled through deserts and fertile lands. He proceeds to give an account to Giles and More. In an ironic twist, given More's own attachment to Henry VIII, Hythloday states that he doesn't give his information in advice of kings or princes, for to be beholden to them is not a wise thing. He quotes Plato, in saying that unless kings were themselves philosophers, they should never appreciate philosophers.

More argues for public service, which Hythloday rejects as something that other place-seekers will use to bolster their own positions. Then Hythloday makes the startling pronouncement with regard to how a society should be constituted: 'As long as there is property, and while money is the standard of all things, I cannot think that a nation can be governed either justly or happily; not justly, because the best things will fall to the share of the worst men; nor happily, because all things will be divided among a few (and even these are not in all respects happy), the rest being left to the absolutely miserable.'

Hythloday proceeds to give an account of the life of Utopia, where, he says, there are so few laws and so much liberty and equality that virtue is always rewarded, and each person has what he or she needs. He talks about this under the following headings:

Of Their Towns, Particularly of Amaurot
Of Their Magistrates
Of Their Trades, and Manner of Life
Of Their Traffic
Of the Travelling of the Utopians
Of Their Slaves, and of Their Marriages
Of Their Military Discipline
Of the Religions of the Utopians

'Utopia' is a radical document. It anticipates the modern idea of communism, with private property at a minimum; it is generations ahead in the idea of equality of the sexes and freedom of religion. This may seem a remarkable statement from someone who will go to his death supporting the Roman hierarchy, but in historical irony, had religious freedom been respected in England at the time, More would have had nothing to fear.

'Utopia' was a place of education and free inquiry. Again, More's own life models this - travelers from as far away as Constantinople and Venice, visiting More's home in Chelsea, remarked on the incredible sense of knowledge and respect for reason and learning, not just for the men, but also for the women of the household (More's own daughter once impressed Henry VIII with her Latin training so much he was at pains to find something at which he excelled that he could best her at).

At different points throughout the text, More (speaking through Hythloday) jabs in witty and insightful manner the habits of the day - that kings are often more concerned to fill their own coffers than increasing the general wealth of the nation; that courts are designed to be self-serving and self-perpetuating; that liberties are curtailed not for just and reasonable causes, but often for petty personal reasons.

Some of the ideas, however, are not as modern or enlightened as they might seem at first glance. Utopians' freedom of religion exists only in very narrow bounds of reason - they are all monotheists, and while they might identify this deity with the sun or moon or a good person who died long ago, they are not permitted to speak or attempt to convert others to this idea, without risking bondage or death. Not too Utopian after all...

-------

More was beatified by Leo XIII in 1886 and canonised by Pius XI in 1935 (it is significant to note that Anglican-Roman relations were at a strained point during these times, and the raising of an English saint who rejected the Anglican construct served at least minor political points, something More would have been able to appreciate, if not approve). The official feast day is July 9.

Beyond Imagination, 14 Dec 2007
Imagine every other person in your social circle, family, friends, workplace and high street dropping dead. This was the reality of the Black Death, at least in the more crowded settlements. A tragedy beyond imagination that Defoe brings alive.

It's not the mortality that grips you, catastrophic as they were, but how people, even close relatives, shunned each other because of the near-certainty of contracting the disease and ending up dead themselves.

It's probably my duty to highlight, too, that the Black Death was almost certainly not bubonic plague as it doesn't fit the facts of how the disease spread, but hemorrhagic fever. One of the key pieces of evidence is the outbreak of plague in Iceland, which is known not to harbour a rat population at that time.

Rivetting factual account, 30 Jun 2002
A Journal of the Plague Year argues its case better by a bald statement of facts, than by any elaborate literary devices. This reads like it is meant to be, a journal, bringing home the horrors of that awful time in a way that a second-hand description could never do.
Having said that, this account IS second-hand; it is only Defoe's journalistic expertise, boyhood memories and down-to-earth style that make it so believable.

BUT - anyone who reads this should not expect another Gulliver's Travels - it IS heavy going; it's not a book that one can curl up with & relax, you have to work for your entertainment.

The main point that comes across is the constant religious undercurrent, which was, I guess, typical of the time (if not of Defoe) and the willingness to attach blame for anything unusual to outsiders, or God's will, rather than examine their own circumstances (so what's changed in 337 years!?). As one of the few records of that terrible year, this deserves a place on any amateur historian's bookshelf.

Dark, gripping, and sad story based on a truthful account., 10 Jun 2000
If you skip the depressing death bills, this story will grip you and won't let you go until the end. If you are a history major this story will give you insight into 1660's. Be it human nature, government setup, society setup, etc. A must read!

Fascinating 17th Century Docu-Soap account of the Plague., 28 Apr 2000
I was interested in this book because it promised an account by one who was there and not by student historians who make a living by guessing our past. The gripping eye-witness descriptions make up for the often tedious death toll listings which, once you've read one are best skipped over. A symapthetic view - not too dark.

Interesting and at times quite grisly, 07 Aug 1999
What I like best about DeFoe is that he is very readable and can hold your attention for hours. Sure, he can contradict himself at times and he does have a flair for repetition and while he is not above pointing out the obvious, DeFoe is extremely interesting. "A Journal of the Plague Year" contains all the things DeFoe is noted for including a sharp eye for detail and sly humour. I liked this book and recommend it mainly because much of what DeFoe observed about human nature in the early 18th century is still relevant today.

Almost complete satisfaction, 24 Jul 2008
This is one of the most fantastic privileges a person could have - to listen to, and be touched by - a dead French nobleman from over 400 years ago.

Not only is the work wonderful, the translation is highly consistent and careful over the breadth of the volume - and if you ever needed a book on a desert island, this could be it.

Complete satisfaction may be closely approximated, for some - alledgedly - by a slightly over-ripe banana, I'd suggest this is even closer.

Exceptional, 03 Sep 2007
It's difficult to overstate the brilliance of this book. Montaigne's essays (or 'trials', or 'attempts') have something for everyone: they're enlightening, they're touching, and frequently they're laugh-out-loud funny. It seems absurd to call a 1300-page book an easy read, but Screech's modern translation makes the Renaissance writer accessible to all. The index comes in handy too, since the titles Montaigne gives his essays are often misleading.

Buy a copy and keep it on your bedside table. The Essays make ideal night time reading.

Edit: I can't help but notice that in the 'Customers Who Bought This Item...' section, everything listed is a set text on a certain Open University course. I nevertheless remain hopeful that the glowing reviews on this page will be read by a few who aren't already obligated to buy this particular translation!

Wisdom in abundance, 04 Dec 2006
One of the great humanists of all time. If you want to learn more about yourself and yourself in relation to others and the world around you, Michel De Montaigne's words offer more than almost any book you may ever read. An honest, beautiful and perspective-enhancing book.

The first esssayist, 16 Feb 2006
This book contains all the wisdom you will ever need. Buy it and read an essay a day, and your life will be enriched for the better. This book packs in so much erudition, wit, truth, love - even comedy that it will be the best friend you've ever had, and keep you company until you die.

Anecdote after anecdote, this book is relentless in information. You could study it for a lifetime and barely scratch the surface. But I propose that one should read it for leisure, whereby the selection of one essay a day, even a week, will unmeasurably enrich and empower the reader, making them more humane, fair and accepting in their wordly judgements and decisions.

An enlightened consciousness, 21 Dec 2005
Michel de Montaigne is considered by many to be the inventor of the literary form of the essay, so the collection from which these excerpts come is important in several ways. Montaigne was a humanist and a skeptic in his philosophical approach, and essentially looked at his own experience as the first topic for examination always.

The book of Essays was one he worked on periodically throughout his life, issuing different editions, the first of which appeared in 1580. Montaigne's style of writing is sometimes stream-of-consciousness, sometimes structured in more formal styles.

Montaigne's stated task in his preface to the reader is for self-examination, but it becomes very clear that Montaigne sees himself as an 'everyman' character. He strives for full-disclosure; indeed, he w